I wish to comment on the draft Local Plan in so far as it concerns the allocation of 125 houses in Loxwood to 2035.

I refer to the NPPF part 2 para 4. as follows:
* Sustainable development defined as 'need and demand for housing and employment in the area'.
* Infrastructure capacity, including water treatment, roads and transport, including public transport.
* Flood risk and settlement character.
* Availability and deliverability of potential sites.
* These criteria define a 'Service Village', which Loxwood is deemed to be. I want to take issue with this conclusion on these grounds:
1. Need and demand for housing in the area.
i) I accept that Loxwood is a popular and thriving village and a level of new development is indicated. However, it is unacceptable that by opting out of the process of identifying potential development sites our neighbouring villages have entirely escaped the allocation. Loxwood PC has been diligent and co-operative in this exercise and it's difficult to understand why Loxwood has therefore been burdened with an unduly high, whole area allocation.
ii) Loxwood does not 'need employment' in the area. As a satellite to Cranleigh, Guildford and Horsham among others options for local employment are many.
2. Infrastructure.
i) Southern Water have stated that any required enlargement of the main sewerage system could not take place for several years.
ii) Local transport is of necessity by private vehicle as just one bus a day travels out of and back to the village. How does this conceivably comply with the criteria for a 'Service Village'. There is no other form of public transport.
3. Flood Risk and settlement character.
i) The present flood risk in Loxwood is under control but is a continuing risk for any site near a waterway. There are many of these in the local area.
ii) Loxwood is a village. It does not have the infrastructure, employment, transport or facilities to be anything else. The expansion proposed will fundamentally alter this and the rural nature of the settlement.

In summary, whilst I accept that Loxwood must play its part in providing appropriate new housing, the numbers proposed are excessive and unwarranted and fail to take into account the potential for other local villages to contribute to the plan. Loxwood does not meet the sustainability test for 125 properties as defined in the NPPF, nor is CDC complying here with National Planning guidance.